Tom, creator of the claimed 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction, was recommended to the program by J7T, i.e. the July 7 truth campaign. J7T are a small group of people – and they can get extremely agitated when shitty Israyhell gets a mention, they have poo-pooed “Zionist” connections not so long after 7/7 despite today J7T claiming We don’t have a clue what happened that day – but if you’ll excuse the liberty: We are pretty sure Zionist Israyhell is not involved . It’s not that surprising that Tom was recommended by them because Tom pushes the same ambiguity that J7T do, but in a reasoned and respectable way devoid of non-sequiturs, diversions and/or false accusations.

Tom is asked about the report of the supposed shootings at Canary Wharf (CW). He avoids discussion on that. Well, actually, he does and he doesn’t avoid discussion of that issue. He ‘discusses’ it in so far as he mentions it in terms of other non-CW events.

In the interview, (28:48 start) Tom is asked about “the question of who was shot at Canary Wharf ” Note: The host “alex:g” should have added “media reports of…”.

Tom says

28:59

“One of the various things that came out in the reporting on the day of 7/7, was this notion that there had been some kind of police operation at CW, and there was even this rumour that suicide bombers had been shot there by police marksman.” Now that may or may not have happened.”

29:19

“I’m dubious [about the reports] to be honest…”

“…there’s a lot of different rumours going around on 7/7…”

“..Again, it’s a possibility [the shootings], but it’s something we have to have more solid evidence to go on than simply a few media reports saying this way or that”.

Was that a discussion of the possible shootings?

It didn’t look like it to me. It appeared that Tom was trying to ascribe the ‘CW shootings’ to rumour. Fine, but there is no way he can say for certain the reports were actually a rumour. And immediately after this, the discussion moves onto the return tickets. Tom himself says there’s a contradiction here mentioning the governments narrative binging up ONE report in The Mirror about the ‘return tickets’. He then goes on to elaborate on the ‘problem’ talking about the tickets as factual. Now as far as I remember, I’ve read people claiming the CW ‘shootings’ were mentioned on TV and they appeared in one or more newspapers. Tom discusses this one lone report as if it is factual giving credence to The Mirror’s return tickets, but unevenly didn’t apply this to the more reported CW shootings.

You know what?

It doesn’t really matter. Tom’s an individual. He is free to make his own judgements on what he thinks is strong evidence and what he thinks is something to be avoided. He exercises this liberty here regarding the CW ‘shootings, and makes the personal call that it’s something he finds not productive to discuss. OK. That’s a reasonable position to adopt. People shouldn’t throw horrible slander and lies against him if he says something others don’t happen to agree with.

34:44

“Obviously I have a suspicion that 7/7 was some kind of black-op. Otherwise I wouldn’t have made that film”

Here we see J7T being uneven. They recommended Tom who openly admits he has suspicions (see also 2:31 later) , but J7T fiercely attack and repeatedly libel other who have suspicions, one summised because they are suspicions+Israyhell.

Tom goes on to warn (in an advisory capacity) that independently formulated alternative narratives ‘need to know what covert-op looks like’. This is curious. Who has proposed an alternative conspiratorial narrative and doesn’t know the history of black-ops? It seems likely to me that anyone concluding 7/7 is a black-op/false-flag, then they would almost certainly have read up on other things like the Reichstag fire, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Nero’s Rome etc. I have extreme doubts someone would compose a narrative of 7/7 with only knowledge of 7/7. Perhaps Tom was alluding to something else, because what he said here isn’t particularly logical.

Tom mentions ‘people have pushed the connection between 9/11 and 7/7 for various reasons’ (???)… ” I wonder what reasons Tom knows of ?, anyway…

36:02

“…Particularly with the 7/7 story, what’s so obvious to me, is the number of red herrings there are {I’ve seen that line almost verbatim elsewhere}..Number of things that just been taken down a particular path and it’s then turned out to be untrue.

Well Tom, I seriously doubt you know of any ‘red-herrings in progress’ but it would be nice of you would share them. A other ‘truthers’ have asserted this red herring thing but of course don’t know of any red herrings in progress or have zero proof (other than a reasonable sense of suspicion). But it makes them look smart by pretending they do KNOW these red herrings. What’s more, by asserting red-herrings are part of the 7/7 narrative, Tom is really strengthening his own suspicions that 7/7 was a black-op’ as red-herrings are deliberate acts. And that’s ok. As a thinking human being, he has the perfect right to have those feelings. It would be wise to wonder who, why and how all ‘those’ red herrings are put in place.

Tom continues:

“and the CCTV is a great example of that. You mentioned the conspiracy files and what you there is they got Nick Kollerstrom (NK) who is one of the people who thinks 7/7 was an inside job, was a covert op, and he’d spent three years basically going around saying there is no CCTV from London…”

Excuse me Tom. While I’m not that up to speed with what exactly NK did in those three years, I suspect it was a lot more than ‘just going around saying’ words which perhaps conjure up some homeless man making wild suggestions. Perhaps this would be a bit more accurate(?): “He’d spent three years personally researching, interviewing, gathering evidence and wirting on the subject in the belief there was no CCTV from London – which given none was released for years, wasn’t such an unreasonable thing to do.” – or “going around saying there is no CCTV from London” If you want to stick to Toms description.

“…those four guys weren’t even in london that day, and claiming that one frame we’d seen from Lution was a fake. So what did they do? They roll out CCTV from Luton showing a nice long stretch of action so, kind of proving that it’s authentic, I mean I suppose the whole thing could be faked, but taking it at face value, and then they show him CCTV of these four guys walking through Kings Cross and he’s flabbergasted, ‘cos he’s been rolled down a cerain path only for them to cut him off.”

Kind of proving it’s authentic? huh? Is it authentic or not? Tom himself later allows for the possiblity that it wasn’t authentic. So Tom, you should really have said perhaps “suggesting the the audience that it was authentic”. Tom again is taking something at face value, which is what NK did before the footage was released – i.e. at face value there wasn’t going to be any footage. And Tom does say various people had requested that exact footage. Tom is impaling himself on his own sword somewhat. To the best of my recollection, the Luton video DOES NOT show the alleged ‘4 bombers’. If you can make them out to me and prove the tape is genuine, then ok, your words make sense.

As for the single frame, MANY people inc some in J7 made statements suggesting the single still frame outside Luton train station was fake, what with bars going through bodies and strange leg dirextions and no distinguishable faces, or if you prefer Toms description again “[NK] claimed the photos were fake” – which by the way there isn’t any proof that they are not fakes!

Maybe Nick did make a boob on the CCTV in London thing. Like any serious investigation, the leading model can then under improvement to fit the known evidence. But of course to those ‘loving liberal’ truthers who hate NK and wouldn’t hesitate to fling muck at him [Nick suspects Israyhelli connections] would use that to dismiss everything NK has ever done or said re 7/7.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it Tom. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that what you find ‘strange’ will eventually be given a palusible explaination. Don’t worry, I’m sure J7T won’t hate you, after all, you don’t mention the “I” word. So readers will have to excuse me for thinking that it wasn’t unreasonable to think there was going to be no CCTV footage. I’d hazard a guess that this crossed almost everyone’s mind at some stage. (c.f. 9/11, pentagon, hotel camera)

The ambiguous approach does have it’s merits, but as I’ve pointed out a couple of times before, it itself is limiting. An alternative narrative based on the facts is inherently closer to the real truth than some amorphous ‘blurr all’ ambiguity. Of course, alternative narratives (subject to human prejudice and biases) can fall foul of information in the hands of people(government) who themselves have an interest in trying to de-rail truth seekers, should the govt be involved with the deliberate killing of civilians. That said, it is mightily peculiar that those in possession of such material (which independent researchers can only scratch and scrape for) can only deliver a narrative that is less plausible than those independent researchers.

It tirns out that Nick probably made a mistake going on a BBC program intent to scorn independent narratives (while glossing over the govt’s Swiss cheese narrative) and J7 didn’t do this to their credit (one wonders why the BBC didn’t take the liberty of picking up on J7’s alternative narratives anyhow). My guess is Nick though he could publicise the problems with the govt’s narrative and show people there was an alternate explanation. But still, we all make mistakes.

Note: If someone proposing a ‘shitty Israyhell’ connection of 7/7 had a name like “alex:g” I can imagine the stinking ridicule that would flow their way from some quarters. Such an “Israyhell’s involved” researcher would also have suspicions flung at him for appearing on the mainstream media.

This interview shows clearly the rank hypocrisy amongst some who call for the truth, oops, I mean the truth(which doesn’t involve Israyhell).

2:31

“When 7/7 happened I instantly felt that this was something that didn’t really didn’t add up, that what what we were being told probably wasn’t true.”

Well done Tom for being honest and humanly flawed like the rest of us and acting on feelings. It matters not what points I make here. Your effort to advance the truth emerging from that day is applauded.

Tom based his documentary on what he said was:

“the reported facts, at least what it is we’ve been told what reports say the media has said”

{Don’t forget the CW shootings folks}

–

Finally, that Jaguar, surely that’s a deliberate plant. Surely! I can’t believe the police(?) pouring over that CCTV and scruitinising it for month upon month, would not have ‘seen’ the issue of the Jag.

And what do you know, A car which appreas to be a Jag AMAZINGLY appears what also amazingly looks like a blue micra parked in Luton train station, in a helpful “visual aid” for readers see: J7T picture contained in the post A Nissan Micra Tardis?

Here’s some more of Tom’s words:

“When 7/7 happened I instantly [my emphasis] felt that this was something that didn’t really didn’t add up, that what what we were being told probably wwasn’t true.”

Strangely, I’ve never really written about this before, even though it’s something quite important to my current and predicted world view. This post is prompted/catalysed from a reply to one of my comments by Spencer Burrows. I had posted a video by Mark Passio, an ex-satanist, once insider, which features a bit of numerology.

A few other respected commentators have posted about numerology in the past.

Here’s my view on it:

I believe there issomething in numerology. Even if there is no ‘manifesting power’ dimension to it, it has the properties of being communicable so does carry a power of some kind – akin to the power of the communicated word. BUT, at the same time, I can’t help feeling uneasy about what perople assert about it, because it seems, anybody could just pick any combination of numbers they wished and perform any mathematical operation on them to get the result they desired. For example, I once read a numerology page about “Prince Charles of Wales” which claimed he was the ‘beast’ because his name, “Prince Charles of Wales” gave the numbers 666. While it is perhaps interesting that those letters came to 666, and I checked them myself, to me, the article was just daft. His name isn’t “Prince Charles of Wales” at all, according to wikipedia, it’s “Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor” {and yes, I know the Windsor bit is debatable} and his title, again according to wikipedia, is “His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales” (at least from 1958).

Isn’t that a clear demonstration that the author of that claim simply used the letters convenient for ‘proving’ his argument, which although the result is mildly interesting, it isn’t anywhere near a ‘smoking gun’

It seems to me, those guardians of real actual numerological studies, would NOT allow these (real)potent secrets to get loose {for reasons that it could be used against them}. What I find much more credible is those Guardians (perhaps possibly gaining a base in the ancient Indus valley, via the Cain (of Cain and Able infamy) and enduing up being captured by Cabala/Zohar ‘pseudo’ “Jews”) of this knowledge have allowed the creation of and spread of false/harmful numerology to serve their undoubtedly Satanic agenda. So there is probably something in what Mark Passio says, but (and I could be 100% wrong here) the numerology he talks about, is probably not exactly what he thinks it is. He said ti represented thought, actions, deeds (whatever it was), and I suspect it is something related to magic or demon influencing.

Sahih International:

And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic and that which was revealed to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut. But the two angels do not teach anyone unless they say, “We are a trial, so do not disbelieve [by practicing magic].” And [yet] they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah . And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves, if they only knew.

–

I’m afraid until I get to the knowledge these Cabala priests have, I’m not going to be so set-minded as to the workings of numerology and it’s meaning.

Besides, do you really have to go through the dubious area of numerology to conclude 9/11 etc, were evil and Satanic acts?

–

Google: ‘Hidabroot number 7’ (some of the Hidabroot videos come with subtitles). Do you really think these YouTube ‘rabbi’s’ are telling you the real nature of these things? One Hidabroot Rabbi, Rabbi Zamir Cohen {if the subtitles were correct} is at best a distorter of the truth, and at worst an outright liar:

“These [Israyhelli] politicians don’t understand how they can surrender so much, yield so much, give so very much and yet all of this amounts to nothing. On the contrary, every concession made by Israyhell is interpreted by the Arab side as weakness and surrender rather than gesture of peace. The Arab side utilizes this perceived weakness to ask for more, to fight us more, to struggle more, to hurt more.” – source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g63dR7wOAZc

Ian Thorpe was one of the first people to become one of my blog friends when I started blogging on blog.co.uk

I like Ian’s posts a lot, (even if I don’t always completely agree with his views), but his analysis is good, he’s logical, tells the truth as he sees it and he has a good heart. I wish him all the best – especially being his birthday today.

The article is about the apparent reduction in ‘growth rate’ of atmospheric methane. The sloppy article fails to say whether the rate is positive or negative (i.e. the actual level is increasing or decreasing – I don’t have time to read the source, I’m only commenting on the BBC part of it).

If the article was about the increase in growth rate, the article would surely not have hesitated to say how elevated levels of methane contribute strongly to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One could be forgiven therefore to imagine an article about lower levels would mention something along the lines of “decreased growth rates of methane in the atmosphere may indicate a trend towards global cooling”.

But no.

Having FOUND the growth rate levels are down, we get the baseless supposition:

” there are suggestions that methane levels are now on the rise again.”

followed immediately by the new paragrpah

“Methane is regarded as one of the most potent greenhouse gases, trapping over 20 times more atmospheric heat than carbon dioxide. “

OK OK OK, this is the BBC – you gotta expect some crap, and the expectation sure don’t go by unmet.

By the way, in the medical profession, when certain increases are found e.g. Autism this is solely attributed to greater accuracy in diagnosis. But methane rates, either up or down, (how did they measure atmospheric methane in the industrial revolution? and who did that measuring? Ice core samples perhaps??).

There is also babble that the reason for the three decade decline in methane is because Asian farmers have switched to synthetic fertilisers instead of traditional manure fertilisers…Oh, so that over 30 years we much greater head of cattle producing much more cattle dung irrespective of whether it’s used in a paddy or not isn’t relevant. Marvellous.

More…

“”We think the trend we see in methane is best explained by dramatic changes in emissions linked to fossil fuel production and use which seem to have declined in the 1980s and 1990s. “

“Climate sceptics who think that natural factors and not human activities play a more important role in temperature rise…”

Frist of all, one again look how it’s temperature “RISE” inclined, and in no way suggestive that the reduction in growth rate may signal a turning point towards a period of global cooling, hene deserving the script: “spectics believe natural factors could cause more cooling than anthropogenic factors”.

And what of the term “Climate sceptics”? What does this really mean? Is it supposed to mean people who deny there is a climate??? Is deployment of this term meant to ridicule? Shouldn’t the description be something along the lines of “sceptics of well publicides claims regarding levels of AGW” by the likes of the Al Gore and East Anglia Universities ‘Climatic Research Unit’ each of whom have been embroiled in questionable behaviour” etc?

And is the quoted sentence above saying ALL so called “climate sceptics” are like this? It could refer to just a particular subset but then it the sentence doesn’t really make much sense to single them out. It seems the claim is indeed aimed at ALL sceptics.

and to top it off…

“I think both studies are actually suggesting that human activities are playing a very important role in determining the methane levels in the atmosphere,” he explained.

As we use more and more fossil fuels, you can be sure it will start creeping up again slowly, I think it demonstrates pretty clearly that human activities have direct and pretty profound impacts on the levels of these gases in the atmosphere.”

This Dr Murat Aydin seems like an idiot to me. How does the result lead one to exclue natural factors? I guess by this very idiocy that Aydin is a pro-AGWer. He totally inverts what is FOUND… There is no creeping up at all. If anything there is a creeping down, no wait, the article says earlier on that the reduction was “substantial”

How crap.

–

P.S., today I heard Captain Planet (who does nothing against banks, governments and corporations what are raping the environment for a fist full of dollars) say:

“If the population keeps growing the way it is, tere will be too many people everywhere” – Captain Planet

Why do I have a feeling I know just which people dear Captain Planet would like to see a reduction in?